Complaint summary

Mr Moore has complained that pension contributions which were deducted from his salary were not paid into the Plan by the Company.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s determination and reasons

The complaint should be upheld because the Company failed to pay contributions (on Mr Moore’s behalf) within the required time frame.

Complaint summary

Mrs Stewart’s complaint against NHS Pensions is about their decision not to award her Mental Health Officer (MHO) status for parts of her service. She says NHS Pensions’ decision is unfair because she is aware of other staff who have retained their MHO status, despite having the same role as her.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s determination and reasons

The complaint is upheld against NHS Pensions because they failed to provide Mrs Stewart with appropriate information about why some of her MHO applications were declined.

Complaint summary

Mr X has complained that the NIPB have refused to refer his case for review under regulation 31(2) of the Police Service of Northern Ireland and Police Service of Northern Ireland Reserve (Injury Benefit) Regulations 2006.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s determination and reasons

The complaint should be upheld against the NIPB because they have failed to take steps to establish whether or not Mr X is in receipt of the correct level of benefit.

Complaint Summary

Mrs Buffoni has complained that Standard Life were guilty of systemic management control failure; negligence in accepting the trusteeship of two potentially conflicted SIPPs without ensuring an adequate method for resolving conflicts; poor communication, delay and incompetence and repeated failed assurances of action.  As a result a property within the SIPP was not sold within two years of her husband’s death and she lost the opportunity to take the money tax free.

Complaint summary

Mrs Godfrey has complained that Abbey Life and Towers Watson failed to inform her, at the time she took her retirement benefits, of the existence of a guaranteed annuity rates (GAR) in relation to a policy (numbered 250302020P) (the Policy) held on her behalf by the Trustee and providing her entitlement under the Plan.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s Determination and reasons

The complaint should be upheld against Abbey Life and Towers Watson because:

Complaint summary

Miss Tracy has complained that she has been refused an ill-health retirement pension and that there were delays in processing her appeals through the Internal Dispute Resolution (IDR) process.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s Determination and reasons

The complaint should be upheld because there were flaws in the process adopted by the Medical Advisers for deciding whether Miss Tracy’s incapacity was permanent or not.

Complaint summary

Miss Middleton complains that AC Management and Mark Harris have failed to respond to her enquiries about the status and security of her pension, leaving her unable to plan for her future and exercise her transfer rights.

Complaint summary

Mrs Readman has complained that the SoS, on behalf of Devon Primary Care Trust (the Trust) – her former employer, refused to authorise the payment of unreduced early retirement benefits to her.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s Determination and reason

The complaint should be upheld against SoS because their decision refusing to authorise the payment of unreduced early retirement benefits to Mrs Readman was perverse.

Complaint summary

Mr Dodge’s complaint against the Commissioner and Capita relates to their failure to inform him of the tax penalties on his retirement benefits when taking subsequent re-employment.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s Determination and reasons

The complaint should be upheld against the Commissioner because it had a duty of care, as Mr Dodge’s employer, to have informed him of the tax implications of re -employment on his retirement benefits. Its failure to do so has led to Mr Dodge incurring tax charges on his retirement benefits.

Complaint summary

Ms Lott’s complaint against the Commissioner and Capita relates to their failure to inform her of the tax penalties on her retirement benefits when taking subsequent re-employment.

Summary of the Ombudsman’s Determination and reasons

The complaint should be upheld against the Commissioner because it had a duty of care, as Ms Lott’s employer, to have informed her of the tax implications of re -employment on her retirement benefits. Its failure to do so has led to Ms Lott incurring tax charges on her retirement benefits.